IRAQ: Did General Clark ever support the IWR passed by congress?

[FrenchieCat]

This is a long standing debate that I want to put to bed.
PS:
For those who already knew the answer to this: Great.
For those who don't give a damn! Fine (skip this thread)
For those interested in the General's position on the IWR resolution....read on, and then bookmark!

To Preface: Some here at DU have renewed their belief that General Clark was for the Invasion of Iraq and would have voted "yes" on the Resolution. These Folks are currently posting this view on these boards, and I want to get this cleared up, once and for all.

These folks are citing a Factcheck.org article that has some mis-information on Clark's position. This information is erroneous, and I urge folks to write to them to have the record corrected. As a long time Clark supporter, I will. In conjuction, same folks are using the directly below article to bolster their claim.

Please read this post in its entirety....

SPECIAL NOTE- According to the language of this article used to support the notion that Clark would have supported the Resolution, please note that Clark would have approved "A" resolution... not "the" resolution,

Considering that amendments were still being passed (as I show in the last piece of evidence in this OP) on the final language concerning the reach that the President would have in a Resolution passed by congress, it is clear that one year later, the press played gotcha with Wes Clark, in the middle of his primary bid. Folks now are doing the same on these boards.

Please read the all, and note that "the/a resolution" statements that Wes Clark made was not reported via direct quotes, and the context of those statements that are direct quotes in the story more accurately reveal what Clark's feeling on Invading Iraq were.

It is unfortunate that the AP reporter, in making substitutions of "THE" for "A" and using attributed paraphrasing vs. "direct" quotes was able to offer a story who's tenor became questionable enough (when one doesn't look at all of the facts on the ground) that Ms. Swett, who was working for Sen. Joe Lieberman at the time of the primary campaign, was able to use this story to accuse General Clark of being "For" "the" resolution.

http://premium1.fosters.com/2002/election%5F2002/oct/09/us%5F2cong%5F1009a.asp
Wednesday, October 9, 2002
Retired Gen. Clark supports Swett,
raises concerns about Iraq policy
By STEPHEN FROTHINGHAM

Associated Press Writer

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) — Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country’s move toward war.

Clark, who led the allied NATO forces in the Kosovo conflict, endorsed Democrat Katrina Swett in the 2nd District race.

He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for the resolution, but only after vigorous debate. The resolution is expected to pass the House overwhelmingly. Swett has said she supports it, as does her opponent, incumbent U.S. Rep. Charles Bass.

The general said he had no doubt Iraq posed a threat, but questioned whether it was immediate and said the debate about a response has been conducted backward.

"Normally in a debate, you start with a problem and consider possible solutions. Instead, the president has presented us with a solution before the problem has been fully articulated," he said.

"As far as the information we have now shows, there are no nuclear warheads on missiles pointed to America," he said. "You can’t wait 10 years to act, but there is time on our side."

He said al-Qaida remains the largest terrorist threat against the United States, and the connection between al-Qaida and Iraq is unclear.

Clark met Swett in Europe while her husband, former U.S. Rep. Dick Swett, was serving as ambassador to Denmark. Clark came to New Hampshire as a guest of another Clinton-era ambassador, George Bruno, a Democratic activist and former ambassador to Belize.

He said he shares the concerns he hears from many Americans about whether the country should act against Iraq without United Nations support and about how the United States will deal with Iraq after a successful invasion.

Note that it is the Associated Press who claims Clark supports THE resolution that would give Bush authority to use military force, whereas Clark's own words indicate he would only support "A" (key word!) resolution "after vigorous debate." Surely that can be reasonably interpreted to mean vigorous debate that would result in changes (otherwise, why debate?) --meaning he did not support the resolution "as was." Considering he had previously testified to the Armed Services Committee that the resolution need not authorize force, we can guess what he might have felt one of those changes should be.


THE DATE THAT THE CLARK STORY CAME OUT UP ABOVE...IS THE SAME DATE OF THE FOLLOWING "ACTION ALERT" TO BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS.

NOTE: AMENDMENTS WERE STILL WORKING THROUGH BOTH HOUSES, AND THESE WERE THE PENDING AMENDMENTS - NOTE THAT FACTS ON THE GROUND WOULD NEGATE THE CONTENTION THAT CLARK SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE LANGUAGE OF THE RESOLUTION. NO ONE KNEW THE FINAL LANGUAGE....BECAUSE THEY WERE STILL DEBATING IN BOTH HOUSES!

SO ALTHOUGH SOME WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT CLARK SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT THE FINAL FORM OF THE RESOLUTION WAS....WHEN THE RESOLUTION HAD NOT YET EVEN BEEN FINALIZED IS A DISINGENIOUS POSITION THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING PROMOTED!

http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102
10/09/02: Don't Let Congress Ratify Bush Preemption Doctrine

UPDATE: House of Representatives
The House of Representatives is in the midst of 17 hours of floor debate on the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution – H.J. Res. 114. That debate is expected to end sometime tomorrow. There will then be one hour of debate each on an amendment introduced by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) and an amendment introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).

The BUSH-GEPHARDT WAR RESOLUTION gives President Bush a blank check to skirt the Constitutional authority of Congress to declare war, and allows the President to act in violation of U.S. and International Law. IT CONSITUTES A CONGRESSIONAL ADOPTION OF THE BUSH PRE-EMPTION DOCTRINE. Urge your Representative to vote “No” on H.J. Res. 114.

The LEE AMENDMENT would urge the President to work “through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction..." through peaceful mechanism. It is important that we secure as many votes as possible for this amendment. Even Representatives who do not agree with our position should still vote for the Lee Amendment because it upholds the rule of law and supports the United Nations as the proper vehicle for securing a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis.

The SPRATT AMENDMENT will also reach the floor of the House and be debated tomorrow. This amendment to the Bush-Gephardt war resolution is the most important vote in the House against President Bush. Although it authorizes the use of United States armed forces, it does so ONLY pursuant to any UN Security Council resolution that provides for the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and ballistic missiles with ranges exceeding 150 kilometers, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. The Spratt amendment would mandate A SECOND VOTE IN CONGRESS, following the failure of the UN Security Council to adopt such as resolution, AND failure of the Council to sanction the use of force to compel Iraq's compliance. THIS SECOND VOTE IN CONGRESS WOULD BE REQUIRED BEFORE THE PRESIDENT COULD USE MILITARY FORCE.

The Spratt Amendment is being supported by an increasing number of House liberals and moderates alike who see it as the BEST CHANCE WE HAVE TO STOP BUSH. Therefore, any support for the Spratt amendment would be important. This amendment is certainly not perfect, but we need to secure as many votes as we can for Spratt to show the breadth of doubt and opposition to the peremptory approach of the president embodied in H.J.Res. 114.

A MOTION TO RECOMMIT -- At this writing it appears that those opposed to the Bush Resolution will have the opportunity to offer a Motion to Recommit. A “Yes” vote on the motion would send the President's resolution back to the committee of jurisdiction to ensure that Bush cannot go to war until he answers fundamental questions about long-term costs and consequences of an Iraq war to the U.S. economy and the stability of the Middle East. The point of this motion is to require the President to give Congress and the American people the answers they are demanding. (See previously distributed alert on “President Fails to Answer Basic Questions About Iraq War”).

Contact your Representatives and ask them to vote YES to the LEE and SPRATT AMENDMENTS and vote NO to the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution – H.J. Res. 114.

Click here to see summaries of the Lee and Spratt Amendments

UPDATE: Senate
If Sen. Daschle and Senate Democratic leaders cannot come to an agreement on the rules for debate by the end of today, then a cloture vote is likely. Cloture is a method of limiting debate or ending a filibuster in the Senate which takes at least 60 Senators. If a cloture vote carries, then it will deny Senators like Sen. Robert Byrd from filibustering. Thirty hours of floor debate is expected in the Senate, making an actual vote likely on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

The BUSH-LIEBERMAN WAR RESOLUTION is the Senate version of the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution.

The BIDEN-LUGAR AMENDMENT would authorize the use of force only to disarm Saddam Hussein, not depose him.

The LEVIN AMENDMENT, introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), would curtail the broad powers provided by the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution by requiring the President to first secure a UN Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq.
It would require a second vote in the Senate pending action or inaction by the UN Security Council.

Senators should be urged to vote for the only resolution that would mandate a 2nd vote be taken before the President can launch a war against Iraq. Thus, implore your Senators to vote YES to the Levin Amendment and vote NO to the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution – S.J.Res.46.
Don’t give up! To resist is to win!
Send Free Faxes to Congress from True Majority

[noahmijo]

1. Even if he did so what

People need to stop arguing over who supported it rather they need to read the damn thing and realize that BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH NOT KERRY NOT CLARK BUSH BUSH BUSH violated what was written in the IWR and betrayed those who signed it.

The IWR gave the president the keys to a car. It did NOT give the president authorization to crash it.

[FrenchieCat]

2. That's why I prefaced it by saying that those who didn't give a Damn....

should skip this thread.

I am addressing those that seem to care enough that they are posting such a claim.

But thanks for your comment anyways! :hi:

[noahmijo]

3. I read it and I thank you for posting this

I just had to babble my two cents in tis all :)

[FrenchieCat]

10. Not a problem......

I just don't want to go too OT...cause these accusotary folks that I was speaking of have yet to "chime" in with their additional "evidence" as to why they stated what they did in reference to Clark's position.

But I am confident that they are furiously researching and googling as we speak!

[drummo]

18. It's not needed since you yourself produced contradictions

I have to go now but tomorrow I'll elaborate.

But you sure ignored the Pindell quote. That one indeed can be found with Google. In fact I've already posted it earlier today and you ignored it.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Please do come by when you have a moment....

I read the Pindell piece, and I still don't see a direct quote from Wes Clark supporting the resolution, nor do I see any difference in what is said here and the AP piece. Clark like Howard Dean and others supported "A" resolution, but not the one that gave Bush a blank check....as he clearly stated that he felt more debate was needed as the debate had been held ass backwards....and that he, like the American people had real concerns......

Remember he always supported "a" resolution, and stated so many times, including during the time he testified to both houses of congress.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Clark's September 26, 2002, testimony to the Armed Services Committee, in which he states:
The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail...
...in the near term, time is on our side , and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. http://www.tacitus.org/user/Armando/diary/2

In his Op-Ed dated October 10, 2002, "Let's Wait to Attack", which was written AFTER HE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE VOICED SUPPORT FOR THE RESOLUTION CLARK IS STILL TALKING ABOUT TIME IS OUR ON SIDE. GUESS HE WAS DOING HIS PART TO TRY TO KEEP THE DEBATE GOING AS AMENDEMENTS WERE STILL BEING VOTED ON:
In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months. The U.S. has total military dominance of the region. Although Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, he has no long-range missiles with which to deliver them. Certainly, the clock is ticking, because Saddam may eventually acquire the nuclear weapons and delivery systems he seeks. Nonetheless, there is still time for dialogue before we act.
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

HERE'S THE PINDELL PIECE YOU ARE NOW TALKING ABOUT WITHOUT ANY DIRECT QUOTES.....AND THE RESOLUTION WAS STILL NOT FINALIZED!

http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/october2002/10_09_02.shtml
Former NATO commander backs Swett in rare political endorsement
By JAMES W. PINDELL
PoliticsNH.com

NASHUA, October 9 -- The former Supreme Commander of NATO, General Wesley Clark, today voiced support for the the much-debated war resolution in Congress and the candidacy of Democrat Katrina Swett, who is attempting to unseat Republican Rep. Charlie Bass in the 2nd district.

At the Soldiers and Sailors Monument in downtown Nashua, Clark appeared alongside his longtime friends, Dick and Katrina Swett, saying Katrina would make a great congresswoman. They met when Dick Swett was the Ambassador to Denmark, and Clark the head of NATO.

"I rarely endorse candidates for political office and I have always considered myself non-partisan, but Katrina Swett is an exception," said Clark.

The Bass campaign told PoliticsNH.com that receiving the endorsement of every New Hampshire veterans group this week was much more important that receiving the endorsement "of people from Washington."

Much of the discussion at a well-attended press conference centered on an impending war on Iraq. Clark, a former Rhodes Scholar, tried to point out in historical terms how America may lose its dominant hegemony with the Bush administration’s latest pre-emptive strike doctrine.

"Certainly in certain cases we should go to war before our enemies strike, and I think this situation applies here, but I am not sure we should write it down and publish it as policy," Clark said.

Despite opining on what may happen in the Middle East there were more, well, domestic conflicts to be concerned about.

It seems that a handful of cars from the Swett campaign and at least one reporter’s SUV were illegally parked on Nashville Street next to the event. Among the cars illegally parked was Swett’s light green station-wagon used in commercials. (PoliticsNH.com parked legally down the street and vacated the space well within the two-hour limit.)

The parking became an issue when a pony-tailed 20-something male pulled over his maroon van casually walked up directly to the microphone where Swett was speaking, tapped her shoulder while she was in mid-sentence and said: "The sign says no parking, not even for politicians."

He was quickly escorted away, but minutes later a Nashua police cruiser turned on his lights and drivers moved their cars to nearby Abbott Street. The press conference was over by the time the police showed up.

Katrina joked that she and Clark would have time to answer questions as long as there weren’t any new developments in the parking situation.

Mrs. Swett supports going to war against Iraq, as does Bass. Swett’s father, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) is the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee. A Holocaust survivor, Lantos likened the Saddam Hussain regime in Iraq similar to that of Hitler in Germany. A few weeks ago nine people were arrested outside of his congressional office in California while protesting his decision for war.
Swett holds the same belief as her father on the issue.

James W. Pindell can be reached at [e-mail]

Know that the media was pushing this war as much as Bush. So, I don't find it surprising that they jumped on the opportunity to have a 4 star general "support a Resolution" and no doubt that they made sure that it would make good copy for their purpose.
I just never bought into what the media's selling. Considering what the media did to Al Gore, I'm surprised that you would hang your hat so firmly on a story like you are doing.

If it's Pindell vs. Clark's word that I have to decide on, considering all that Clark's had and did say about this war...I choose Clark. You on the other hand go for the journalists.
Ironic!
:hi:

[drummo]

45. Here are the problems I have with your argument -- sorry to be late

REGARDING THE "A" vs. "THE"

1.You said that "the/a resolution" statements that Wes Clark made was not reported via direct quotes but still you say that it is sure that Clark said "a" and not "the".
You said that Clark's own words indicate he would only support "A" (key word!) resolution.
How can you know that in fact those were Clark's own words when it is no more a direct quote than the sentence where AP says ' he would advise her to vote for the resolution'?

There is no quote in the AP article which shows that Clark said he supports "a" resolution just like there is no quote which shows that he said he supports "the" resolution.

Based on your standard we should believe that neither statement is accurate. But then AP not only paraphrased what Clark said but made it up, both times and we should think that they made up everything else they attribute to Clark including his supposed comment about vigorous debate.

You obviously don't do that. Instead you arbitrarly pick the one sentence (which is not a direct quote) which seems to support your thesis while you accuse the AP reporter of paraphrasing Clark's words.
How can you know that it is not the "a" statement which is the pharaprase?

You also have no doubt that he said 'but only after vigorous debate' when in fact that is not a quote, either.

2.Clark, when he was asked by the Globe why he would have advised Swett to vote for the resolution had she been in Congress said this:

"Because I wasn't following the resolution and I didn't even know what was in the resolution," said Clark. "My message is that I am not a political consultant, period."
Clark added: "Had I been in Congress I would not have voted for it because I would have recognized that the administration was going to use it as an authorization to go to war."

Apparently he didn't even try to defend himself the way you defend him now. He didn't say that
I said "a" resolution and AP distorted my words by reporting that I would have advised her to for "the" resolution.
Instead he came up with this totally abdsurd claim that he didn't know what was in the
resolution. Now if that's true how can you claim that his comment "only after vigurous debate"
meant that he wanted certain changes in the language when in fact apparently he didn't even know the original language? If he indeed didn't know what was in the (note that this is Clark's word as quoted in the Globe) how could he be sure that a "vigorous debate" should change the language?

You know, if he didn't know what was in the resolution why didn't he say that to AP? Why didn't he say that I will have to study the language before I answer this question? If your theory is true and Clark wanted a debate because he didn't like the original draft then either Clark lied when he said he didn't know what was in it or you are wrong about the motives behind that comment about the need for vigorous debate.

But frankly, don't you find it odd that someone like Clark, who was so interested in the subject that he wrote a column for The Times of London in Aug 29, 2002 and then he testified before the Congress would not read the very resolution that at least by Oct 9 had the potentional to give the greenlight for war? Come on. Gore knew what was in that resolution. I knew what was in it.
Many people who were not the the Congress knew what was in it. But Clark, of all people, didn't because he didn't pay attention.
Strange.

REGARDING THE SEPT TESTIMONY

He said then on Sept 23:
The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail...

But then on Oct 9 he said, according to AP, he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country’s move toward war.

Now which one? Did he support a resolution that gave Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq or did he support a resolution which simply agreed on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail?

If he understood the difference between the two on Sept 23 why didn't he understand it on Oct 9 and why didn't he just repeat what he said back in Sept? That would have made it clear that he thought the draft resolution which gave a blank check for war should be rejected by the Congress.

REGARDING "VIGOURUS DEBATE"

In no way does that mean that Clark wanted any change in the resolution's language let alone that
he wanted changes which would be consistent with his Sept 23 testimony. He had to know that just because something is debated in the Congress does not mean it is changed before the vote.
If Clark wanted changes in the resolution why didn't he just say that and why didn't he say what kind of changes he wanted to see? He obviously had the opportunity to read the draft, just like Gore read it or anyone who was interested. He had to know that the draft was a blank check for war.
If he was strongly against passing that resolution and wanted a resolution which wouldn't have let Bush to go to war before he had exhausted every other option why didn't he say just that?

You said :
Considering he had previously testified to the Armed Services Committee that the resolution need not authorize force, we can guess what he might have felt one of those changes should be.

That's a fallacy. He actually said according to AP that he would support a resolution which
authorizes the use of force.
Now you say that what he really meant was he supports a resolution which authorizes the use of force but only after vigorous debate which would produce a resolution that would not authorize the use of force.
That obviously doesn't make any sense.

REGARDING THE QUESTION OF THE FINAL DRAFT

1.You said:
SO ALTHOUGH SOME WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT CLARK SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT THE FINAL FORM OF THE RESOLUTION WAS....WHEN THE RESOLUTION HAD NOT YET EVEN BEEN FINALIZED IS A DISINGENIOUS POSITION THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING PROMOTED!

I certainly did not say that the resolution was finalized by the time Clark made that statement.
I said that the resolution Clark had the chance to know about on Oct 9 was the same as the final resolution since the language was not changed.
And I said that by Oct 9 the resolution which the White House drafted and went to the Congress was known. Clark could have easily said that because that resolution was a blank check for war I would not advise her to vote for it. And if he thought that certain amedments should be passed why didn't he name them and said if this or that is added to the resolution then I would advise her to vote for the resolution?

2.It's sure that the resolution was not finalized by Oct 9 but it is also sure that Clark could know the language of the final draft in Sept, 2003, right?

And he said according to the NYT:

At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question.
I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position -- on balance, I probably would have voted for it.

So he said he I probably would have voted for it. That "it" obviously meant the final resolution and he still didn't know whether he would have voted for it or not even thought it was a blank check which you claim he never supported?

Then on Oct 22, 2003 Clark called the Globe and told Scot Lehigh:

"I would have voted no on that resolution,"

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/10/24/clarks_scrambled_message_on_iraq/

So which is it? 'Probably' or 'I don't know' or 'no'? If that is a consistent position then what would you call inconsistent?


Here are my problems with your argument -- sorry to be late

REGARDING THE PINDELL PIECE

You highlighted the first sentence in the Pindell piece but I didn't refer to that.
I said Pindell quote. And that quote clearly shows that Clark was talking about going to war and not some kind of resolution that would have given "leverage".

"Certainly in certain cases we should go to war before our enemies strike, and I think this situation applies here, but I am not sure we should write it down and publish it as policy," Clark said.

He said this on Oct 9. If he thought that going to war before our enemies strike applied regarding Iraq in October when he said this how can you claim that he always was against war?
He said pre-emptive doctrine should not be written it down and published as policy, which is fine but that has nothing to do with the issue whether he thought back in October,2002 that we should go to war with Iraq or not or whether he supported the resolution as it as drafted by the Wwhite House.
John McCain also opposed the doctrine but he supported the Iraq war and voted for the resolution.

Noone so far has proven that this quote is inaccurate. Clark himself never disputed it. And if he did say it certainly it does not prove that he was against the Bush-Gephardt draft.

[FrenchieCat]

55. So does your thesis back up your claim that Wes Clark supported

War with Iraq and supported the resolution?

If so, we will have to agree to disagree.


Gore's a good man, but I don't know if he's worth Sliming another good Democrat who believed much as he did in order to arrive at that conclusion. Obviously you fall into the category of believing and pushing whatever it takes to achieve that end goal....That somehow Al Gore is a better man than Wes Clark.

Al Gore should have run in 2004 if he was so concerned. He chose not. It wasn't my decision, certainly.

[drummo]

78. You dodged my questions.

Clark's statements regarding Iraq were contradictory or absurd.
If he didn't really support the resolution then he didn't know what to think about it, which is not much better than supporting it.

And it is not bashing. What doesn't make sense that doesn't make sense.
You claimed that he has always been consistently against that resolution which is simply not true in light of the reports which quoted him. So what should I think? That 1+1=10?


BTW I don't think that Clark is a Democrat, to being with. He became a Democrat only after he decided to run for president. What did he do for the Democrats before that? Nothing.

He voted for Reagan. He praised Rice, Cheney, Rummy and the other neocon idiots and was thankful they were in charge of our national security. He is actually on the record doing all that stuff. What on earth was he thinking?

[FrenchieCat]

80. You are terribly misinformed on several fronts....

Nothing that Clark said was "absurd". That's your opinion, and you are happy to have it, but you saying it doesn't make it so. Now if I were to suggest that your entire argument is what is "absurd", I'm sure that you would disagree with me....so let the readers judge for themselves....

BTW, I see that you may be relatively new on these boards, which is why you may be intent on re-hashing the primary wars already fought at the time that Al Gore decided not to run for President in 2004. Again, he made that decision, not me.

You don't think that Clark is a Democrat, but I do.
Please know that your words don't carry any weight for me. I have researched Wes Clark long enough for myself to know what he stands for.....you, on the other hand... are welcomed to insinuate what you know something that others don't.

Trouble is that we have already gone through this type of mean spirited circular distrust of those who some may see as a threat to "their" hero. Obviously you have yet to do so which is why you may be attempting to engage folks on this board.

Also, your criticism that Clark said he voted for Reagan...and? The only reason you know this is that clark told us. You can hold that against him if you want to......I don't. Your purity test is yours.....personally I prefer leaders who are not so rabidly partisan which is what Wes Clark was not during his 34 years of serving the American people. He was in the Armed Forces and made a faulty determination that Reagan was the best man in terms of National security. He said so, and as far as I am concerned, that's the end of it. He wasn't in politics at the time, and he was looking at it from his world. He has grown much since. I like people that grow...as opposed to those who think that they were struck with a devine inspiration long ago and have closed their minds.

In terms of Clark's "praises" of those you listed......when I mention talk of dishonest intellectualism, this is exactly what I am referring to.

If you haven't read the speech that you are referring to, you should. That speech is a diplomatic speech...one that is dealing with the NATO Alliance and where it stood in 2001, shortly after Clark had retired. In the speech, he is encouraging the new administration to continue their alliance with Europe and with NATO...which Bush Jr. ended up not doing. Whether you want to typify it as "praise" is the GOP line that they wanted you to use. I see that you will oblige.

What about these following words? What do they mean to you? Since you inpugne anything positive that Clark has ever said about this current administration, was it alright that Gore had positive words for Bush? Or do you have a justification for it....but that can only be applied to "excuse" Al Gore? I personally don't have any problems with what Gore said...but then, I don't claim in having been struck with a devine inspiration on what's right and what's wrong :shrug:

''I support the actions President Bush is taking, without reservation,'' Gore said.

Gore said he was passing through Nashville to see his mother in Carthage, Tenn., and to eat a ''free lunch'' with members of the state's Democratic Executive Committee, the Tennessee Federation of Democratic Women, and the Tennessee Association of Democratic Chairs.

During a brief press conference outside the luncheon at the Sheraton Downtown, Gore said Bush ''is doing an excellent job with this.''

''He gave a very, very good speech the other night,'' Gore said. ''And I think his immediate reactions to mobilize the country were just right.''

Some Democrats were speculating that Gore might be gearing up for a 2004 run for president, but he left that issue open.
http://www.tennessean.com/special/worldtrade/archives/01/08/08857179.shtml

-----
AND.....
President-elect Bush inherits a nation whose citizens will be ready to assist him in the conduct of his large responsibilities.

=I personally will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans -- I particularly urge all who stood with us to unite behind our next president. This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done.

And while there will be time enough to debate our continuing differences, now is the time to recognize that that which unites us is greater than that which divides us.

While we yet hold and do not yield our opposing beliefs, there is a higher duty than the one we owe to political party. This is America and we put country before party. We will stand together behind our new president.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transcripts/121300/t651213.html

Will you now say that what Al Gore said positive of Bush, .....Clark was not allowed to diplomatically do something similar in May of 2001?

Like I said, your argument stinks.

Both of these men are good/great Democrats who have done good things for this country.

You can take the stance that somehow that's not so....
I personally take the stance that it is.

[CarolNYC]

84. heh...

Uh oh...I guess this one's going to have to cross Gore off the list too...He praised Bush....definite no no...:eyes:

Actually, what I think when I read criticisms like that about Gen Clark's past is that someone like this must have had major problems with Robert Kennedy too, considering his evolution as he matured....I, on the other hand, found this one of his most attractive features....RFK was my first "political hero" and I haven't felt about someone in the political world the way I felt about RFK until Gen Clark came along.

[drummo]

87. I'm certainly not a big fun of RFK but

at least he didn't turn himself into a "Democrat" just before he decided to run for president. If someone does that that stinks, ya know?

As for Gore praising Bush 90% of the country was doing the same after 9/11. Including me. But there was no 9/11 when Clark praised the entire neocon cabal after they grabbed power regardless what the voters wanted.

[drummo]

86. If you think I'm misinformed then you should

at least point out what was inaccurate in my post.
You haven't done that. Instead you continue to dodge my questions such as how can you say he has been consistently against that resolution when first he said he probably would have voted for it then he said he would have voted no on it?

Of course it sounds pretty absurd that Clark claimed he didn't even know what was in the resolution. That would indicate his total disinterest in the issue in Oct 2002 and based on his activities in late Aug and Sept that sound unbelievable.
The fact that he was not in the Congress is not an exuse. Gore was not in the Congress, either. I was not in the Congress. Still both of us knew what was in the resolution.
But in case it is true, and he was totally ignorant about the language, then your point that Clark said he wanted a vigorous debate because he didn't like the original language and wanted to change it doesn't make sense. After all how does someone want to change something he doesn't even know?

This has nothing to do with the primary wars or Gore's decision not to run in 2004. The issue was whether Clark supported the IWR or not before or after it was passed stands on his own independently from any election campaign.

That you now say "your words don't carry any weight for me" indicates that you cannot refute what I said in my earlier post, since up to that point "my words carried enough weight for me" to try to refute them.

And apparently you haven't researched Clark enough to detect the contradictions in his statements regarding the IWR.

Yes I would hold a vote for Reagan against anyone who runs for president and claims, all of a sudden, he is Democrat. The fact of the matter is that Clark hasn't done a thing for Democrats, he never took the heat of the Republican smear machine never stood up for any Democratic cause and he became a "Democrat" only after he decide to run for president. If he was so independent as you say why didn't he run as an independent? That would have been the honest thing to do.

So say it was a faulty determination, but was his flattering tirade about Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld etc. AFTER the Supreme Court stole the election also a "faulty determination"? He must have known those people and he had to know that the only reason why they could be in power was that the votes were not counted. But apparently he was not bothered by that small thing. His praise for them was also a sign that he "had grown much" since he voted for Reagan, right?

Your claim that because Clark praised the neocon cabal just because it was a "diplomatic" speech (which by the way I read) is contrived. No diplomatic speech would have required him to suggest after a stolen election that it was a good thing for the country those neocons were in charge.

What about the post- 9/11 comments? I agree with them. Most Democrats agreed with that and still do. Bush indeed did a very good job in the immidiate aftermath of 9/11. Do you dispute that? He had 90% approval rating where do you think it came from? Only Republicans?
But when Clark made that speech there was no 9/11. There was instead a stolen election which put those neocon in charge. You don't want to say that all those Dems who supported Bush after 9/11 would also have praised the neocons after the SC stole the election, do you?

[CarolNYC]

102. hmmm....

Well, I guess it's not surprising that you have no idea how much Clark has done and continues to do for the Democrats, considering that you hadn't even heard about Bush referring to the "internets". Seems you've been paying very little attention to most things during the last couple of years....There are, however, threads all over DU about the many things that Gen Clark has been doing...They are extremely easy to find.

But, if you are looking for someone who is looking to divide people rather than unite them, who will always put party before country, Wes Clark (who truly does look to unite people and who will always put country before party) is not your man. You'd do better supporting someone like, say, George W. Bush.....

Oh, and maybe when Clark spoke kindly of Bush and his crew at that dinner, he was just trying to answer Al Gore's call from December 2000, the one where he says "I call on all Americans -- I particularly urge all who stood with us to unite behind our next president."

[drummo]

109. I was not talking about the years AFTER Clark decided

he was a Democrat.

But BEFORE that. Name one thing that made him a Democrat before the primaries.
If he was so independent why didn't he run as an independent?

As for the 'unite the people' mantra, no damn politician can unite the people because no damn politican divided them in the first place.

The people divided themselves and there is nothing to be done about it.
There is a culture war going on and it goes to the very roots of the different lifestyles of reds and blues. Clark can say or do whatever he wants it will not make reds like blues better and vice versa.

As for Clark answering Gore's call gimme a break. Every concession speech contained a similar line, it's the standard, and Clark didn't say that we should unite behind Bush but suggested that it was so good for the country that Rummy, Cheney and Rice et.at. were in charge which was really over the top, not to mention stupid, especially after what happened in Florida.

[Texas_Kat]

31. So who is James E Pindell and why does he consider himself an authority

on international policy and national security.... and why did he not understand what Clark was talking about in 2002? A little investigating reveals that PoliticsNH and Pindell are 'owned and operated' by the same reliable sources that bring you CNSNews, NewMax, the National Review and the Washington Times. This sordid and twisty tale of hidden agendas and Republican fronts is nothing new, but since part of the purpose of DU is to inform, we should all be aware that what may seem to be a reliable source, often isn't. Be patient, we'll all learn from it.

This article from myDD about PoliticsNH (which is apparently owned by front companies for the Republican noise machine) may explain a bit:

http://mydd.com/comments/2005/8/6/16267/71243/22?mode=alone;showrate=1#22

Here also is a piece from the Boston Phoenix about the role in the 2004 NH primary of PoliticsNH.com, the sister site to PoliticsPA. The article can be found at http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/talking_politics/documents/02685359.htm

At PoliticsNH.com <<Click on " Our Team, " and it brings you to the photos and brief bios of four staffers: managing editor James W. Pindell; senior editor Brian P. Murphy, a former staffer for George magazine; Jordan S. Lieberman, who is the president of the Publius Group, which owns the site along with several others, including PoliticsNJ, PoliticsVT, and PoliticsNY; and columnist Dante J. Scala, who is also an assistant professor of politics at Saint Anselm College. A check through the Networks Solutions search site reveals that PoliticsNH is registered to NameSecure.com. Wally Edge is listed as the site's " administrative contact. " Edge did not return a call from the Phoenix. On the PoliticsNJ site, though, the " About Us " link says, " PoliticsNJ.com is operated by The Publius Group (ED. Note-an apparent front for The Claremont Institute) and our editor is Wally Edge, a pseudonym for the people who are working on this site. "

Last February, Roll Call columnist Stuart Rothenberg did a piece on anonymous political Web sites. When he called the Publius Group, Lieberman called him back but wouldn't provide additional details on who was backing the venture. Rather than identifying himself as the president of the Publius Group, as he's now listed on PoliticsNH.com, Lieberman told Rothenberg that he handled marketing for the company. Rothenberg's conclusion? " The potential for abuse with these sites is enormous. What would stop a candidate from setting up an anonymous political site and using it as a way to undercut or discredit an opponent?

It's often a mistake to lean on sources when you don't know the source's agenda.

PoliticsNH is actually an offshoot of PoliticsNJ (http://politicsnj.com/about_us_01.htm) and the Republican Publius Group (http://www.claremont.org/projects/publius/). Please note the similarity of wording in the 'about us" page between these two sites and some additional information in this article at DKos.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php?title=Wally_Edge&printable=yes

The link between PoliticsNH and PoliticsNJ and Pindell is indisputable:

http://www.politicsnj.com/September18_2003.htm

About Us (PoliticsNJ)
We're pleased to report that one of our websites, PoliticsNH.com, has opened our first newsroom. We have a small office on Elm Street in Manchester, New Hampshire -- right in the heart of the first-in-the-nation primary. Seven of the presidential campaign headquarters' are nearby -- all within a four-minute walk. PoliticsNH.com has two full-time reporters: JAMES PINDELL, who joined us fourteen months ago from the Dominion Post in West Virginia...<snip>

That the Publius Group is undeniably an offshoot of the Claremont Institute. The Claremont Institute even has a webpage featuring their Publius fellow program. The Claremont Institute also sponsors CNSNews, NewMax, the National Review and the Washington Times.

Had enough yet?

If not, here's a bit more....

The Claremont lists Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. (of ES&S and voting machine fame) on its board of directors, and his wife, Roberta Green Ahmanson, on the same web page, it is logical to assume, as with many right-wing, Christian Reconstructionist groups, that Claremont is funded by the Ahmansons. (See: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/06/ahmanson)

[FrenchieCat]

32. Wow! isn't that something!

Amazing what passes for "sources" these days!

Great Sleuthin'! We'll be needed all of that and more during election 2006!
With Smart supporters aware of the bullshit,
and doing serious research, we will really kick some ass!

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. This really is great work Kat

They are so good at doing what they do that we have to be even better. Thank you.

[genius]

4. Clark was against the war and, as far as I know, against the IWPR.

Michael Moore backed Wesley Clark.

That said, my concerns about Clark are two-fold: (1) Peace activists (dispite his position on Iraq) are calling him the Butcher of the Balkans (regardless of whether he deserves the title) and (2) He spoke at the SOA and is not ready to take a stand against the use of depleted uranium (an extremely ignorant position he needs to fix).

[FrenchieCat]

9. I understand your concerns....and those will also be addressed.

He spoke before the SOA when it was no longer was called that and when some significant reforms were taking place. He was the Supreme Commander of the Southern Command, so his job was to speak there. In fact that is the only time he spoke there ever. However, I understand your concerns, although it is congress that allows the SOA to continue. He did say that if any of the human Rights group could find just one current instance of Human right violation, he would be the first to request that the school be closed.

In reference to DU, that is yet another debate...and I don't think that Wes Clark is neccesarily "for" DU.

These debates can be and have been had. But my OP was in reference to the Resolution, not to the Kitchen Sink. I realize that General Clark is held to higher standards and must answer to much more than than folks such as Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Barbara Boxer, John Edwards and John Kerry....and that each of his positions and words are usually put under the most precisioned microscope.... But thank you for your views nevertheless! :hi:

[karynnj]

11. Actually, in different threads

the supporters of different candidates feel their favorite is being misstreated because of double standards. I feel that on many threads with regard to Kerry. Kerry who has been a public figure since the 1970s is held responsible for every word he has ever spoken and every vote he ever took. I think we're all more sensitive when it is a candidate we like.

DU seems very pro Wes Clark - he wins every poll.

I think at this stage, we need to be careful to applaud good work.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Agreed. Absolutely right.

But that should include refraining from pounding away with dozens of posts that have the (probably intended) effect of casting one Democrat in a negative light compared to another Democrat that one is actively supporting. Democrats are not running against each other at this point.

[karynnj]

20. True, I didn't intend to d that here

I was simply saying that all of us see "our" favorite as uniquely criticized and admitted that I've felt that way re that attacks on Kerry.

[FrenchieCat]

24. hi Tom!

The part I hate is when I have something to say about anyone...it means its a coordinated attack!

Like Clark said....if Democrats can't Defend Democrats, how can the nation believe Democrats will defend her?....or something like that!

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. Shhhh, don't admit we know each other. It will prove the conspiracy...

I said on another thread that Liberals used to be accused of being stuck in the 60's, but I think more are fixated on January of 2004. I can't believe that anyone wants to relive those debates now. That's why I am not responding to all of the posts that are flying by, I don't want to add fuel to that frenzy, but it's hard when those who are pushing it mistake silence for acquiescence. Sigh.

I don't think any of the men being discussed are perfect, including Wesley Clark. Not Gore, not Kerry, none of em are and none ever will be. They are all good men doing their best. I see some point in debating current policy differences between Democrats. I see a lot of sense in bringing out the policy differences between Democrats and most Republicans. This crap though can wait for 2007, if ever.

[CarolNYC]

26. Yeah, well what I see is

someone with a big old bug up his butt running around from thread to thread like a chikcen with his head cut off (or maybe it's a she??) trying to convince everyone that Clark was for this war. I would wager a guess that I'm not the only one who sees it either. I think there are a lot of wise people here who can see what's going on.

Clark's statements and actions are out there for all to see. There's a reason Tom Delay referred to Clark as a blow dried Napoleon, and it wasn't because the General was supporting Bush's war!

Thanks for posting all you did Frenchie, just in case anyone's getting confused....

The thing is, Tom Delay got indicted today!!!! 2006 is coming upon us really really quick....and 2005 is here already (Go Tim Kaine!!). As such, I'm going to ignore the ridiculous tortured posts about how pro-war Clark was....and dance and sing out the good news of today.....Then I'll start worrying about what we do with Iraq now...and thank goodness there are good Dem leaders trying to work on that because someone's got to do something. The situation's a mess!

[stellanoir]

5. the bottom line is that

the * administration pushed this to Congress before the '02 midterms. In the shadow of 9/11 they would have been perceived as being unpatriotic had they not approved that measure. They foolishly believed that * would wait for UN approval if the authorized this measure. He did not. He based his unlawful assault on Iraq on his father's timeline in reference to a quick in and out based on his father's model and his own reselction cycle with no pre-planning whatsoever. The troops we sent in there didn't eve know how to say "hello" in Arabic. Flowers & chocolate indeed.

Clark has described it repeatedly as a "bait and switch" maneuver. I think that's really apt and says it all.

[noahmijo]

6. the bottom line indeed. Now if only we could convince

other Democrats who claim Kerry and Clark are "pro-war" of this fact.

[jonnyblitz]

7. i dont claim they are pro- war..i just don't think we can ever fix

things if we stay. the longer we stay the chances are greater we will have to institute the draft. i dont see this "stay and fix it" as that much different from Bush's "stay the course" as far as body count goes. :shrug:

[noahmijo]

8. I didn't say you were pro-war I meant "other" Democrats as in not you

and I agree I don't like the stay and fix it attitude because we'll be staying and fixing it for the next century and beyond it's not gonna happen, what I do want to hear more of though is EXIT STRATEGY EXIT STRATEGY as opposed to TROOPS OUT NOW! TROOPS OUT NOW!

[FrenchieCat]

14. There is a difference between Political strategy which is

what we can work on...and actually getting concessions from Bush....

I agree though that there is no "saving" Iraq nor is there a "victory" in the hallways of the non strategies offered by this administration.

That being said, I do believe that it is in Dems' best interest to offer up plans.....no matter that they will not be implemented. In this way, Dems will be able to repel the "Cut and Run" label...that although is bullshit in itself, could stick to Dems running for congress in 2006, as the media is not on our side in this. Remember that they have awsome power, no matter whether we think so or not. They would only have to substain certain perceptions until after the election....and then they can tell us to kiss their asses, e.g., Election 2004.

It's not about facts with this administration and this media...its about perception and how "they" will propagandize the stance of Democrats no matter how untrue, slanted, biased, or otherwise. Unfortunately we cannot underestimate their power.

In a world of "fair" media, Dem leaders could demand that we leave immediately considering that there are excellent reasons to do this....but considering that our calls will only be answered by political manipulation, we would be fools to step into the trap set for us..... we cannot lose sight of an appropriate political strategy to regain power in 2006...which is when we will be able to demand what we want, and actually see it happen.

Possible scenarios that we should not want to see:
1. Bush hears the call for "Immediate Withdrawals" and heeds the public outcry and starts to "withdraw" some troops just prior to the 2006 election (say Sept...which is when the GOP new election product line seem to appear)....using twisted rational and some PR media fanfare- This leaves congressional Dem candidates who could use this issue running on empty. After the election, Bush re-introduces troups and claims that we need them there...and goes about his business once again.
2. Bush ignores the public call for immediate withdrawal, and the media continues to state that Democrats have no alternative plan beyond cutting and running, which then Democrats are forced to explain...but with slanted news coverage that will make them look bad in the end. Don't think the media will not work overtime creating this image.
3. Bush says F*ck the clamor and initiates another crisis elsewhere to distract from Iraq concerns....like Syria or Iran.


Scenario that would work to our advantage:
1. Democrats offer up various plans on strategies that sound plausible, but offer the caveat that if the administration does not change it's course, then Dems are justified in demanding a way out as immediately as possible.
2. Democrats demand that American Bases in Iraq be turned over to the Iraqis, and that we either turn to a diplomatic solution, or get the F*ck out.
3. "Do this or get out" will work better than the simpler "out".


Whatever happens, we must not lose sight that we only have the power of the people's voices...which can be shut down fairly easily by the media. We must gain power back in order to call the shots. At this point in time attempting to demand "immediate" withdrawal may hurt us more than we have actually determined....and considering that none of what we want will happen in the way that we want it too, wanting to do the "right" thing may become a dangerous political exercise, no matter how "correct" it might seem.

This is Big Boy Time.....as far as I can tell. Political shrewness is definitely required for Dems to come out as the winners in this all around losing scenario.

[noahmijo]

15. you said it with this right here

That being said, I do believe that it is in Dems' best interest to offer up plans.....no matter that they will not be implemented. In this way, Dems will be able to repel the "Cut and Run" label...that although is bullshit in itself, could stick to Dems running for congress in 2006, as the media is not on our side in this. Remember that they have awsome power, no matter whether we think so or not. They would only have to substain certain perceptions until after the election....and then they can tell us to kiss their asses, e.g., Election 2004.

Great to meet another level-headed DU'er.

Unfortunately I think the best we can hope for is another Saudia Arabia. The idea that some sort of free democratic government can be set up there (this is what I'M saying NOT you this is from ME making this assertion) is ridiculous. It's a nation full of people who have spent their lives fighting, and it was never freedom that they were ever fighting for. Power, Control, the expulsion of those who do not fit their sunni or shiite or even Islamic fundamentalist beliefs.

We've taken an already screwed up country and screwed it up even more, I can't even tell you what I would think would be a positive thing to offer the people of Iraq upon our departure from it sadly.

At the same time, there needs to be some sort of exit plan even if it's as simple as repairing infrastructure, training a few more thousand Iraqi police and then getting the hell outta there asap.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Yep.....there's no win, just fucking loses for everyone all the way

around.

But I think positioning ourselves for a congressional 2006 win is some solace in what our future could have in store for us.

[JNelson6563]

13. I was always under the impression

he was against the war. Not sure where the other view is coming from. It's why I would've preferred him to any of the pro-war candidates.

Julie

[FrenchieCat]

17. Kick.....

As I wait for a couple of posters that had so much to say about Clark's position. They were authorities on the matter from what I could tell! :shrug:

[Donna Zen]

19. In a recent speech Clark surprised me

During the Q & A, Clark talked about being on the phone with Dashle late into the night, trying to draft an amendment that would forced bush to return to the Senate rather than give him a blank check for war. He said that finally Dashle called him to tell him that Gephardt had caved, and that the fight was over. WKC added, now don't get me wrong, I like Dick Gephardt who wanted to get the vote out of the news so that the Dems. could return to other issues, but in this case, he was wrong.

I also remember Clark saying that he would have voted as Bob Graham did: "no." He agreed with Graham's thinking about the IWR vote.

If you were paying attention, you knew bush was determined to rush to war in Iraq. Wes Clark always saw this as a geopolitical blunder, and he most definitely was paying attention.

So, does someone stay up long into the night working the phones with Dashle just for the heck of it? I don't think so. Yes, it took courage for the 23 senators to vote "no" on the IWR, but it also took courage for a four star general to publicly oppose this war. Wes lost or nearly lost many long-term friends over this issue. But leaders stand up even when no one else is standing up. Especially then.

If I locate the video clip, I'll let you know.

[CarolNYC]

27. That is interesting Donna...thanks for posting n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

35. I hope you are able to locate the clip.

If you do, please post it on the Clark group here. This is something I would very much like to see, and a good resource to have available.

[CarolNYC]

43. I know where it's from now...

It's from his meeting with activists in Iowa a little while back....I'd downloaded it a while ago but hadn't viewed it through. The exchange about the resoluation is almost at the very end of the 30 something minute video. It's a big file. I'll find the link and post to the Clark group...very interesting....

[brentspeak]

21. Circular firing squad thread

[FrenchieCat]

23. COME AGAIN?

?

[brentspeak]

28. I meant,

some of the posters here are abusing your thread to do the usual Clark and Democrat bashing.

[FrenchieCat]

29. Well, Yeah....

Isn't that par for the course....unfortunately? :-(

[ladylibertee]

30. For those who don't give a damn! Fine (skip this thread)

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

[sandnsea]

34. He supported holding Saddam accountable with war as a last resort

The process taken was the one Clark recommended in September. Whether it was the IWR passed in October, the one that Bush said WAS NOT an authorization for war, or Biden-Lugar, Bush still would have lied and still would have went to war. So what's the damned difference what resolution allowed him to do it. This is such a disingenuous debate.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clark2008]

58. This is true.

And, it's also true today.

Clark is providing the most valid exit strategy - one that would get our troops up and out of there AND allow us to leave without the entire region hating our guts - but Shrub won't take him up on it. Shrub wants his 14 bases to protect precious oil. He doesn't WANT us out of there. We will be there for decades, like Germany and Saudi Arabia.

[wmills551]

36. Why doesn't General Clark clarify what his position was?

Or has he done this already and I missed it? Thanks

[FrenchieCat]

38. His position on What.....

Sorry, but I don't understand. :shrug:

[wmills551]

39. IWR resolution

Your original post says that you wish to put the debate to rest on what General Clark's position was on the IWR resolution. I am wondering why General Clark doesn't just clarify what his position was so we do not have to do so much work (well you did all the work) to sort it out. Again, if he has already done so, and I missed it, I apologize.

[Ufour20]

40. He's done it already, and it's on record

All you have to do is look it up if your interested. Give me Wes or give me Canada!

[drummo]

111. I did just that and the record shows

he could not make up his mind before he saw it wasn't politically beneficial to say that "I probably would have voted for it". His own campaign aids became nervous about it so he came out and told the Boston Globe "I would have voted no on the resolution."

Come on. He can't have it both ways.

[Texas_Kat]

112. Which record is that?

The exposed RW front PoliticsNH writer James Pindell? The "NY Times had to post a correction again?" Adam Nagourney?

Campaign aides 'nervous"? :scared:

Where did you get that idea? Which aides?

Speaking to whom? The Boston Globe? Kerry's hometown newspaper?

Naaawh....

Give it up..... This old chestnut from the Rove-driven right wing meda isn't gonna fly around here. Most DU'ers (who may or may not agree with Clark on all the issues) know better.

[drummo]

122. No. It's not just Pindell and AP

It is also the WaPo and the Globe.


Nevertheless neither you nor Clark proved that the AP or the Pindell quotes were inaccurate. So what's your point?

[PurityOfEssence]

41. Here, have some proof; there's more, too.

Now, the way you phrased the question can be easily quibbled with semantics. If you're asking "did he support the IWR after it was passed by Congress", then you may be right, and I haven't done the research to know. If you're asking "did he support the plan before its passage and would he have voted on it"--which is the IMPLICATION when expressed as you did, then he's sunk himself with his own words quite a few times.

This doesn't make him a rotter and a fiend, it just underlines the hazards of public life and his lack of political sophistication at the time. (He's a quick study, and his political chops are much better now.)

October 9, 2002, per the Associated Press:

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war.

From: The New York Times, September 19, 2003 :

At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question.

A moment later, the Times quoted him adding:

I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position -- on balance, I probably would have voted for it.

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

He quibbled, Dean quibbled and neither of them had to stand for a vote. Neither of them saw and heard the ridiculous lies from the administration that were brought forth to those with the proper security clearance, and nobody was privy to all the information that the administration was.

You want a hero on this subject? His name's Dennis Kucinich.

As you know, I'm a long-time Edwards supporter, and I am very dismayed with his vote. Was he suckered? Was it a raw political calculation? Was it a bit of each? Who knows.

Bob Graham voted against it, but it's unclear whether that's because of the wording or what.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS: THOSE WHO HAD TO STAND UP AND BE COUNTED SHOULD BE HELD TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD, AND WES CLARK TRIED TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. IF HE HADN'T TRIED TO COVER HIS TRACKS, IT WOULDN'T BE SO BAD, BUT HE REWRITES HISTORY WITH FLAMBOYANT CONSISTENCY. It's like the school vouchers issue.

Probably, this is part of his military training, which teaches one to ignore anything but black and white and stick to one's guns. Sadly, this is the accepted mode for modern U.S. politics, but it's not an accurate depiction of life, and it's antithetical to the nuanced complexities of governing.

Whatever.

It's one thing to have a hero, and life without a few is mighty bleak, but to not recognize his/her failings is to make oneself little more than a lackey.

[JNelson6563]

42. You get the flame-retardant suit

I'll get the HAZMAT suit...

[Clark2008]

47. I trust Clark's words more than Time's

or yours.

And considering he testified in front of the HASC in 2002 that it would be a mistake to go to war in Iraq, what he says while speaking through a thought to a biased reporter for the corporate media isn't much of a reason to make me believe he would have supported any attempt to go to war.

[1932]

49. Did Clark claim Time misquoted him?

I'd also love to see a transcript to that testimony before the HASC.

Do you have one?

[PurityOfEssence]

51. It was the New York Times, not Time. The other one is AP.

The previous poster mis-read the attribution.

Admittedly, the New York Times is sullied and has been used as a tool of the neocons--especially on the Iraq War issue--but it's not as bad as Time Magazine. The other quote was from the Associated Press.

[Clark2008]

53. From Ron Fournier of the AP, I believe

And he's a Republican apologist. Just go back and look at his coverage of the ENTIRE Democratic primary. Fournier was just awful. I remember discussions about his being so partisan on many Dem boards, including this one.

There were four reporters on that flight, only Ron Fournier and the WaPo's reporter didn't seem to understand that Clark was talking through a position. The other two reporters (who were from smaller, local papers and thus, not influenced by the sphere of the Beltway) never took Clark to mean anything other than he would have supported a resolution to continue with inspectors, encourage diplomacy and not allow Bush a blank check. The final resolution did none of that.

And, to the poster above this, go here to for his statement:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm

Read it thoroughly. Clark wasn't playing politician and speaking in black and white. It's very nuanced from someone who knows the area and understands that diplomacy should be allowed to work. Clark's position always has been war should have been a last resort and Bush didn't allow any diplomacy.

[PurityOfEssence]

50. this one goes to eleven. Those ARE his words.

He's never denied them. There are other quotes, too.

This was a VERY important issue to him as time wore on in the primaries; wouldn't he have raised holy hell if he had been deliberately misquoted? Those two quotes are INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS.

It's one thing to respect and admire someone, but quite another to completely disregard uncomfortable realities. This issue will come up repeatedly, and if it's not dealt with realistically, it will hurt him. If his supporters want to help him, they should say that it's not completely cut-and-dried, but that he had major problems with the looming possibility of war, or something like that. To deny his own words on this, on vouchers, or on praise of the Bush foreign policy and other things invites defeat.

There are a surprising number of people in this world who can deal with grey areas; one doesn't just have to form up a British Square of impenetrable rectitude or put one's fingers in one's ears and shout like a child who doesn't want to hear something. Addressing messy issues honestly is the best way for your camp.

If you're not going to accept the reporting from the corporate media, I hope you don't cite any when it suits you.

[Clark2008]

54. I never said he didn't say them

What I said was that he was thinking aloud - I've always said that - and that the reporter took him out of context.

However, what you can't seem to understand is that Clark always opposed the war, testified to that effect and was told by this same HASC this year that he was absolutely correct in his assessment of the Iraqi war from the get-go.

My point is that one quote, written by an awful reporter (Ron Fournier) does not a position make. There is A LOT more evidence that he was against the war than this one little quote. Much more.

BTW, I will accept SOME reporting from the corporate media, but not from Ron Fournier.

And what does "this one goes to eleven" mean? Yes, I've seen Spinal Tap, but I have argued with you before and you should know that I've never said he didn't say the words - but I have provided you with MOUNTAINS of evidence that he DID oppose the war. You choose not to believe them over this one little quote.

[FrenchieCat]

59. It doesn't matter what you say in Clark's defense.....

Because Candidate Edwards and others voted FOR the resolution and some found that it had been the "right" thing to do even in 2004....so anything that can be used against Wes Clark to put him at the same disavantage as those who voted "yea" will be highlighted by those supporting others. It's just par for the course and pretty evident.

Clark will be implied as having been disingenious by those who would prefer another Democrat for the 2008 top spot...when in reality, Clark's failing was that he was too honest.....and anything he said after that was used against him.

It's not pretty....it's just plain ol' politics.

But that's alright, and that's Ok.... as long as lessons were learned in the process about the fact that politics is a bloodsport and intellectual honesty is the first casualty in the process.

[Clark2008]

62. Yeah - I noticed that the thread was becoming the

"Team Edwards bashes Clark" thread.

I mean, someone below even posted that she couldn't comment because the mods won't allow her to say anything bad about Clark. Why did she even have to post that rather than simply not posting at all?

[FrenchieCat]

63. Because no matter how heavily criticized Clarkies are and

the fact that Clarkies are often denounced as Hero worshippers....the hypocracy of actual motive escapes certain folks who support certain others.

In some circles its considered the pot calling the kettle black.
I call it intellectual dishonesty.

We are really all on the same side....but its the tactics used within the groups supporting specific candidates that would have you think otherwise.

[Crunchy Frog]

90. You would post something like that

so that everyone will know you're a victim, and so that Clark and his supporters can be pointed to as the cause of your victimization. You become further vindicated by having your posts deleted. This will implicate the mods as being part of a Clarkie conspiracy to victimize you.

The important thing is to promote the notion that Clark supporters are somehow "different" than other people on this board. That they somehow have more of an agenda, more power to victimize others, that they represent some sort of foreign element that has infiltrated the site.

It seems to me to be sort of a clever little propaganda campaign designed to marginalize some of the members of this board. I've noticed that Clark supporters are often used as scapegoats here.

[PurityOfEssence]

65. That's outrageous

You throw down the gauntlet for anyone to disprove your point, and when disproven, you lash out at the relative guilt of others. Whether Clark or Edwards is morally better was not the subject of your thread; whether Clark is pure as the driven snow was.

Edwards' vote was very disillusioning, but at least I admit what he did. Somehow to many of his supporters Clark is much more honest, even when he's all over the board being for or against it depending on how the wind was blowing and never having had to stand up and be counted. That's bad enough, but to attempt to rewrite history is really over the line.

Dean quibbled a bit before the vote, too, lest we all forget, but he was a hell of a lot more consistent. Sharpton was consistent.

When making a combative pronouncement and daring others to cite real evidence, it's most unseemly to wail as if one's being persecuted when such evidence surfaces. People who stir up a ruckus are not poor innocent victims.

This is a pattern with General Clark: he was for vouchers, then against them, then had always been against them with no equivocation and then saw them as applicable in some situations. Personally, that's a line-in-the-sand issue, but whatever.

Don't try to make things black-and-white; they rarely are, and such approaches tend to only appeal to conservatives.

[FrenchieCat]

66. Thank you....

for admitting that you did "not" understand what my op was about.

It certainly was not to say "whether Clark is pure as the driven snow was."

Your mis-interpretation of what my post was about does lend an understanding to your energies and motives.

I don't think that Wes Clark is "pure" nor perfect...nor did I think that when I wrote the op. Period.

I do believe that Wes Clark was not in favor of going into Iraq, and I do believe that the resolution that passed was not one that he supported. Period.

My op was addressing those who were stating that Wes Clark was for this war, supported the invasion, and was for the resolution that passed. Period.

[PurityOfEssence]

72. And who are these people?

As you know, I've followed this endless tiff very closely. I don't recall people saying that he was for the war or supported the invasion; what I've read many times is that people think he was cagey and inconsistent about how he would have voted on the IWR.

Remember: the IWR was to allow military force AFTER all other sincere efforts had been exhausted; support of the IWR is not "let's go get 'em!" It cuts both ways, and I'm sure some legislators were truly suckered by this; Junior never had any intention of doing anything but invade and conquer.

The quibbling on how he would or wouldn't have voted HAS been brought up many times, and it's fairly consistently met with a fusillade from Clark stalwarts that he was always against the resolution and would have voted against it if he could have. I haven't heard Clark detractors claiming he was for the war. Maybe I'm just consistently missing it.

Your thread starter sounds like you were trying to absolve him from ever having been supportive of the resolution, and that's simply not true. The disturbing reality is how people are comfortable with rewriting history when it's a question of their champion.

So who's been saying he was all gung-ho on going to war? That's a hell of a lot different than saying he was not completely against the resolution and on occasion in favor of it.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LandOLincoln]

83. Yeah, his "quibbling" has been brought up many times.

Both the far right AND the far left were happily spouting Rovian talking points to that effect in great bloody gouts during the primaries.

Some still are.

As far as school vouchers are concerned--I would be obliged if you would post a link for your claim that Wes Clark ever supported school vouchers.

Thank you.

[CarolNYC]

85. School vouchers

Yes, LandOLincoln, I'm waiting for this school vouchers link also....Do tell, Purity....

[PurityOfEssence]

97. The ball's in your court

Please use the direct quote from your encounter at that party in New York. The premise is this: Clark and his followers are not content with generally being on the decent side of an issue (against the war and against vouchers) they have to whitewash the past so that he was NEVER wishy-washy on issues.

The quotes pulled show that he was for vouchers in some cases during '03, and also refused to rule them out when asked in a public questioning session after a major speech. He then formulated policy that he was against them and his supporters made it seem as if he had always been that way. At the meeting this year you quoted, he sounds like he's playing it both ways again, much as you and others maintain that this is "framing the issue".

The tenor of your last post was a taunt, insinuating deception on my part. I responded to the poster you imply I was ducking, so now, after well over nine hours, it would be seemly if you replied.

Here's a news flash: the guy would seem decent enough to most folks if he said "I was somewhat torn on the war issue", but am adamantly against it now. Somehow that just doesn't seem to be enough. Similarly, to say "I was open to the idea of vouchers in extremely rare instances" but then saw the light would also garner adequate support instead of needing to rewrite history. (Of course, saying that he's "not against them" now--even if that means this shouldn't be the framing--makes it all seem like double-talk and being all things to all people.)

The guy's not perfect. The continual need of so many of his supporters to paint him so is silly.

[LandOLincoln]

98. I guess you missed my post below, so for your interest and

edification, here it is again:

"Show me where Wes Clark ever said he would support going
to war in Iraq in 2002/3, and show me the circumstances under which he said he would be willing to go to war in Iraq EVER.

Do it now, and do it without your usual spin--IF you can.

Thank you."

[PurityOfEssence]

101. You're changing the subject

This is ridiculous. The thread is about Iraq War Resolution, which only provides war powers to the president after all other avenues have been exhausted. Clark CLEARLY supported that at some points immediately before the vote was made.

As for your slur about my "usual spin", I've been studious about keeping to the point, whereas many of the extremists in the Clark camp change premises as it suits them. You, however, seem to feel entitled to force others to defend statements they've never made. Lest you forget, this thread was started by a Clark supporter who wanted everyone to yell "uncle" that Clark had never even gotten close to endorsing the IWR. That simply isn't true, and worse: he didn't have to stand up and be counted; he could merely be all things to all people and sit on the fence as the situation developed.

Why should I have to back up a statement I've never made or even intimated to be true? All I've ever said is that he was either confused and politically naive to a degree that he misspoke repeatedly, cynically played the field, or actually supported the resolution. I've never said he said "go get 'em". Do some reading, and you'll see that none of the other primary candidates did either, with the possible exception of Lieberman. Kerry and Edwards wanted to put the clamps on the guy and exhaust all diplomatic means.

Do you understand the principals of discourse? If one makes a statement demanding others to disprove it, it's the statement itself that needs to be addressed.

He is on record endorsing the IWR three days before it's final vote. Did anyone ask me whether I had proof that he wanted to fix bayonets and go over the top immediately? No. That was not the question.

Don't put words in the mouths of others.

An apology or explanation is in order.

Now let's take a little refreshing break into reality-land: this thread is about whether he supported the IWR, and it doesn't say whether it was before or after the vote. (Whether that's sloppiness on the thread-starter's part or not or deliberate obfuscation, I don't know.) I've offered quotes of the man that on occasions, he did. Do you admit this to be true? If not, are the sources unworthy, or is dissention simply not to be tolerated for what is pre-determined to be reality? What's worst about his statements is that he was wishy-washy about something VERY IMPORTANT at the time and for awhile afterwards. When the expedient position presented itself, he represented himself as if he had ALWAYS held the same position.

Do you disagree? Did he or did he not say, on occasion, that he supported this resolution? It didn't change very much at all from the 8th to the 11th of October, so that's a very fair picture of the final bill. What say you?

Hey, I'm not putting any words in your mouth, I'm just asking you to comment on the basic contention of this thread.

[CarolNYC]

103. Oh, I didn't know I had a time limit....

Sorry I wasn't monitoring your posts closely but I was actually busy living my life.....

I am, however, so pleased that you bring up the Chris Heinz talk. I was so hoping you would. It is a perfect example of how you operate.

I, of course, don't have the exact quote of Clark's as there was no recording and no transcript and I didn't even take notes during the talk but, at a talk that Gen Clark gave to a gathering of activists at Chris Heinz' home a number of months ago, Gen Clark was speaking on how the Democrats need to speak of what we stand for rather than what we are against, you know, basic framing that everyone talks about, Lakoff and all that...It's nothing new and really nothing cmplicated.

After the talk, I wrote up my summary of it, which contained this passage:

"He talked again about Dems defending other Dems and how people won’t believe that Dems will be able to defend the country until they start defending each other. He said our principles are sound but that we need to articulate them in such a way that people can see that we are the ones who really want to do what’s good for the country….we’re not against gun ownership, we’re for what’s good for the country, we’re not against school vouchers, we’re for what’s good for the country. I guess part of it is articulating that we’re FOR something not just AGAINST something and what we want is what’s good for the country."

The full post is here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1751402

Now, maybe I could have worded it better but, even as I worded it, I think only someone really really really dense or someone really intent on twisting Gen Clark's words could come away from that passage with the understanding that Clark was advocating for school vouchers. I wasn't the only one who thought this either.

Yet, you claimed up and down that Clark was saying here that he was for school vouchers. I don't know, maybe he claimed to be for school vouchers somewhere else, but it was obvious it was not what he was doing here.

Folks can see the conversation that ensued in these two threads...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1760344#1760415

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1760503

No one else interpreted my statement the way that you did but you would not be dissuaded. I don't know, at the time I thought, there is no way this guy is this dense. This must be a deliberate attempt at twisting Clark's words...Now, with you asking me to revisit the whole ridiculous argument, I'm not so sure. Maybe I gave you too much credit...but I'm still having a hard time believing anyone who regularly posts here to be that dense...

Now, you can take all the time in the world to answer or not answer this as you see fit....I won't be sitting here with bated breath waiting for your reply....

(Oh, I do admit baiting you a bit....I posted hoping you'd bring up the Heinz thing...I guess that wasn't really too nice. Sorry.)

[PurityOfEssence]

104. "advocating for" is different than "not ruling out"

For many of us, school vouchers are a total non-starter and a litmus test. I haven't stated that he was proposing them or advocating them in the many times I've brought this issue up, I've been saying that he wants people to think that he's always been steadfastly against them when he has publicly said he entertains them both before and after the primary season.

Just as I've never said the man was a bloodthirsty warmonger on the Iraq issue, I've been saying that he was not as consistently against the resolution as he and many of his fans would like to have us believe.

You accuse me of being deliberately misleading on the former topic when I have specifically said that he's not as completely against them as many of his supporters would have us believe. This is hardly subtlety or nuance, but somehow all arguments with many of his followers must be in black and white.

He got great mileage in the campaign as someone morally and vocally against such things, yet early on and more recently, he's left the door open, either through sloppiness of a desire to have it both ways. The wording in your reportage may have been unintentionally misleading, but why then do you go on to say that he was repeatedly questioned about the voucher issue? If he was clear, why did he have to explain himself? What was the substance of these questions? When reading your post at the time, it was EXTREMELY suspect, and I'm not the only one who interpreted it that way.

People were respectful of your thread about the party, so the lack of complaints about this on that thread doesn't mean a thing; I took my complaints to another thread which I started on the subject.

What was the substance of those questions?

[BootinUp]

105. I'm glad you used the phrase "litmus test"

Who was the candidate in the dem primary who said the IWR should not be a litmus test? hmmm...

You are right Clark didn't have to vote for or against. But you have apparently forgotten that he is the candidate who is the answer to my question above. He may have muffed a hypothetical question or two, but he did not use the IWR to beat up his Dem opponents.

On the voucher issue, you're just plain wrong. There was never any statement by Clark that he would consider supporting vouchers. You completely missed the point of the discussion Carol shared which was a discussion of language, strategy, not issues.

[Texas_Kat]

106. Want a definitive statement from Clark about school vouchers?

A Path to Success for Each Child.

Not all students learn in the same way, and only by offering a wide range of educational options can we ensure that all students develop their full human potential. I do not support school vouchers for private schools. I do believe, however, that there are many ways to expand educational options within the public school system so that each child can find his or her own path to success.

http://www.clark04.com/issues/education/

Is this clear enough? or did you need some explanation for "I do not support school vouchers for private schools."?

If so, please elaborate on which of these words you don't understand.

[PurityOfEssence]

107. The issue is consistency

Yes, from early on in his campaign, he came out unequivocally against vouchers. I don't dispute that. What I dispute is the rancorous revisionist history that he was always this way and still is.

I've provided a quote of his from before getting in the race where he says there are cases where they might be the right idea. I also provide a reference to a response he made after a major speech two years ago where he wouldn't rule them out.

I know full well his platform during the primary; that's not the issue. The issue is that his supporters seem to want to whitewash the past and declare that he NEVER entertained the distant whiff of a notion of them, and I've presented evidence that shows this to be false. Since the campaign, he quibbled in a major way on the issue, so his steadfast stance is again in question.

What don't you get about this? I've been pretty damned clear in my posts on the subject: he was adamant at the time you cite, but before and after, he's been either unclear or actually endorsing them under some circumstances. Yeah, people change their minds, but to not acknowledge that is deception.

What part of this doesn't make sense?

Had he been wishy-washy at first and then made up his mind, it'd be one thing, especially in light of the directness of his statements when he was totally against them, but to expect to rewrite history is another thing. To come back later and play both sides of the street or be sloppy and equivocating about it all is poor politics at best and morally suspect at worst. For his supporters to crush any references to inconsistencies and demand adulation for a non-existence consistency is worse than hagiography.

Black is black, white is white, and there's very little of either in this messy world.

[BootinUp]

108. Looks like both of the

links you reference are from the 1st few days after he announced his candidacy in Sept '03. Probably talking about the same interview but I can't tell for sure. He was still working on his positions for the domestic issues at the time, which is also noted in one your links.

So unless I read those links wrong you're full of it.

edited to say links instead of statements

[PurityOfEssence]

113. Please explain that

The point is that many supporters continually claim that he always was against them. Here's evidence that he wasn't.

There's no argument that once he established his platform he stuck with it throughout the primaries, but there is that he was always of the same mind. That he has since backtracked or been shockingly unclear really undermines the case for consistency.

How difficult does this have to be? My premise is that many supporters whitewash annoying inconsistencies and rewrite history to show ABSOLUTE black and white consistency where there is none. What's worse, is that this is done with core issues that are of great importance to the left. Worse still is the backtracking after adamant cut-and-dried policy has been repeatedly cited.

The very heart of my claim is that he was at least warm to the idea and said so in public EARLY ON. Why is it to be dismissed that the quotes were from early on? This is ludicrous.

The statement at the Chris Heinz party this year really takes the wind out of the sails, especially if he's still posturing as someone steadfast in his moral opposition to vouchers.

[Texas_Kat]

110. Clark is a product of a public school education

and believes deeply in the value of it.

I am living proof that in this country, when you get a good education, you can achieve anything-no matter where you start, no matter what your background might be. I want every child to have the same chance I had. I want to make sure that all children have the chance to develop their full human potential.

It is therefore essential that we make public education our nation's top priority. The quality of our public education system is critical to our social and economic strength. -- Wes Clark
(same link as above)

One of the first issues Clark spoke of was the importance of education

Perhaps it's that you would like to believe things one way (like somehow you'd prefer he doesn't agree with progressive ideals) then when you find out he actually holds true progressive beliefs, it's easier for you to believe that Clark changed his mind or was 'wishy washy' rather than you not understanding what he said to begin with.

You haven't presented any 'evidence' of anything, so far as I can tell. "I know full well his platform during the primary; that's not the issue....." Well, apparently you don't, otherwise you wouldn't re-state your false assumptions.

Unlike many current Democratic front-runners for 08, he's been remarkably consistent on his progressive beliefs and stands on issues.

He's always willing to listen (of course) but almost as a trademark, if he's changed his mind about something, he's very up front about it.

Wish I could say the same about all the potential candidates in 08.

[PurityOfEssence]

114. Please read post #89

Are these issues (the quote and the reference) not up to snuff?

If not, please state your evidentiary threshold.

To what "false assumptions" do you refer? This is all substantiated.

Please don't cloud the issue with relativism; whether he's better or not than others doesn't justify the continual revisionist distortions.

With your second paragraph, you're opening all sorts of issues that lead us away from the point I've made that's being disputed. Show me something he said that I state that shows that I "don't understand". To dismiss one who holds a contrary opinion as dim and unable to comprehend simple reality is a shoddy rhetorical turn.

In short, it's like this: many of his supporters refuse to admit that his publicly stated beliefs and policy choices are not consistent. Whether through sloppiness or deliberate attempts to play the field and be all things to all people, his statements have not been consistent on many things. This is just one of them. Had he disavowed his statement that vouchers were an option in certain cases and never turned back, while admitting that he'd made a bit of a mistake, that'd be one thing. He didn't. Somehow the pre-primary statements never happened, he was the champion of a no-voucher universe during the primaries, and he's spoken in public since the election pointedly leaving the door open to vouchers, and we're supposed to swallow this mish-mash of backtracking and inconsistency as the pure and moral progressive altruism that it isn't.

This is nuts. Bear in mind that my annoyance with him is mild in comparison to my annoyance with the more vehement of his supporters.

This is endemic to his approach on many things. In a grey world, his stances are to be held as pristine and obvious, while his questionable or very contradictory statements are to be selectively used and exalted to the status of ironclad consistency.

I have no argument that he's made many unequivocal statements damning vouchers and praising public education. The very fact that these are so righteous and unvarnished makes the contradictory statements that are disavowed or swept under the rug seem so distasteful.

If you don't like the evidence I've offered, please tell me what will do.

(Edited to add the second "my annoyance with" in the fourth from the last paragraph.)

[Texas_Kat]

117. You haven't provided any 'evidence' at all.

Here's the story directly from Depauw University. There's not a single mention of 'school vouchers." As to whether he ' refused to rule out support for vouchers speaking at DePauw University yesterday", I'd say.... go to the real source.... not the gossipy...heard it 3rd hand snark that 'the Note' usually is.

There's video and everything at the DePauw site... check it out first hand.

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=378873712384259

You other reference "selectmart" is vague and uncheckable (since THEY don't even bother to reference the quote either by when or where or with some sort of link)

This is what they have -

On school vouchers: "We've got to protect public education," but "there may be times and circumstances on an exceptional basis where vouchering makes sense."

Not that I agree with you that your 'reference' is at all valid, but I can certainly see how extraordinary circumstances might occur.

If the only public school for 50 miles burned down (don't think that it's not possible for some schools to be 50 miles apart-think west Texas for instance), and there was a parochial school in the town, the state might choose to provide vouchers for public school students to attend till the parochial school could be rebuilt. In those extraordinary circumstances, I would agree that 'vouchers' should be provided. Just because you didn't consider these kinds of 'extraordinary circumstances', don't think Clark hasn't.

In the absence of better sources, you shouldn't take such a nihilistic stance,

[CarolNYC]

115. the questions

Dude, he didn't have to explain himself because he wasn't clear....People just wanted more of his thoughts on how to approach the subject when talking about it. The first comment was a just quick comment with no elaboration in a list of other examples of how we should frame the issues as things we are FOR and not things we are AGAINST. (It is really the simplest of concepts, BTW.)

You must remember that he was speaking, in private conversation, to a group of Democratic activists, folks who'd paid a fair sum of money to be able to attend events like these, to discuss what the Democratic Party should be doing. He wasn't trying to convince anyone there that they should be for or against vouchers. It was pretty much a given that the room was against them. The discussion was how to frame the issue, how to discuss it, and have it work the best to our advantage, how to answer the questions and responses that those who do support vouchers might have when faced with someone who didn't, how to answer the arguments that those who do support school vouchers have in favor of them.....That shouldn't be such a hard concept to understand. The questions weren't asking him IF he supported vouchers. Everyone there understood he didn't. The questions were about how do we discuss this with folks who do? People there, some of whom were involved in education, clearly sought out and respected the General's views on this issue and that's why they wanted to discuss it more with him while they had the chance. Have you never attended a session like this? You should if you get the chance.

BTW, I know your complaints were on a different thread...That's why I linked the two other threads that dealt with this in my post...As you can see, just about all, if not all, could not understand where the heck you were coming from on this one....But maybe you were getting a lot of PM's in support of your postion. :eyes:

Geez Louise, I hate to say this because you're doing such a good job of discrediting yourself with this discussion, but you know the more you continue to flog this one, the...ummm...less astute you look...

Now, if you'll excuse me...and even if you won't, my fellow Democrat.....I've got more important fish to fry.

Take care now...;)

[PurityOfEssence]

89. Here's a link on the vouchers issue

So sayeth Clark:

"We've got to protect public education," but "there may be times and circumstances on an exceptional basis where vouchering makes sense."

http://selectsmart.com/president/Clark.html

Here's another one; the link is to ABC news, but the original story was in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette and was not readily available from the internal link in the ABC posting, nor does there seem to be an archive address for this paper.

"Clark refused to rule out support for vouchers speaking at DePauw University yesterday."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote_Sep24.html

CarolNYC can help you find her notes from a speech he gave this year in a private New York gathering. To paraphrase, he was saying that we needed to frame things better; we're not against vouchers, we're for education. Much debate and incrimination was had over this, too, but the quote is, at best, soft on the subject. If it was badly phrased by him, then it was VERY badly phrased. I'm sure she'll be happy to pull the EXACT quote from her thread at the time and we can go all over it again.

The point is this: he and many of his supporters misrepresent history in order to make his positions seem absolutely consistent when they aren't. He fumbled at the very beginning on the subject of vouchers, then adopted a very clear stance against them. That's great, but what's truly wrong is to disavow inconsistencies.

There was an old joke about the Soviet Union: it's a country with an ever-changing history.

[BootinUp]

100. "...but what's truly wrong"

What a bunch of hooey.

These quotes are not even worth the effort to argue about imho, as they are from very early in Clarks campaign before he had time to put all his positions into short media friendly sound bites.

What you haven't shown is that his thinking on any of these issues changed in any significant way and thats what his supporters here are saying.

[PurityOfEssence]

75. Opposing the war is not the issue; opposing the resolution is

There's a huge difference. One could have sincerely believed the lies of WMD evidence given behind closed doors and truly trusted Junior and his mob to exhaust all other avenues before resorting to war. That same person could consistently be vehemently against the war, since it was OBVIOUS that these assholes just went through the motions while going for the war they'd long since decided upon.

The thread is about whether he ever supported the resolution. It's written unclearly so that it could be interpreted as "did he support it after it was passed" or "did he support it before it was passed".

Regardless, three days before it passed, he seems to be for it. That's pretty damned close.

The subtext of the thread is "okay, four-flushers, show me some evidence that he supported it, because you're not telling the truth." Well, there's evidence. It doesn't matter a hoot whether he spent every waking breath deriding the war a year after it had been launched; the question was "did he ever support the mechanism by which it was allowed to be started." This he did.

This smacks of a whitewash, and it's getting very, very old.

Being for the IWR does not mean one is for the war. Having taken a stand after the fact--in the heat of a campaign--is a good thing, and he deserves to be commended for that, but that doesn't seem to be good enough for some of his supporters; for them, he needs to have always been absolutely consistent, clear and correct. He was not. The mechanism by which he was not also reeks of tactical shifting and using the advantage of not having to stand for a vote.

Why is this not clear? Why must one either worship the transcendent and lucid rectitude of the man or else be some filthy cur?

The thread asks for proof that he ever supported the IWR, but it does so in a poorly worded way that insinuates that if he didn't clearly state that he would have supported the very last and final wording, he's totally off the hook. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bills as they stood on October 8th when he made that statement were every bit as damning as the ones actually passed three days later. That seems to answer the question, doesn't it? If anything, it shows that he would have supported something even harsher than what was finally passed; the last three days did not make use of force easier.

[FrenchieCat]

82. So was Edwards against the War?

YOu see, it's not clear TO YOU if Clark was against the War or against the Resolution in the form that passed.

It is clear to me that Clark was not in favor of this war, nor was he in favor of the resolution that passed.

It is also clear that Edwards had no real problem with this war, and had not problem voting on the resolution either.

I stand by Wes Clark. He did more to keep that war from happening while John Edwards words were not those of someone discouraging what ended up happening.

So let's be clear:

You support someone who had no real issues with going into Iraq.

I support someone who had real issues with us going into Iraq.

[PurityOfEssence]

91. That has nothing to do with your original premise

The original premise was that there's no proof that he ever approved of the resolution, and you didn't state whether you meant before it was finalized or afterwards. There's ample proof, and now the waters are being muddied by bringing up someone else's actions.

Clark was inconsistent on his stance before and after the resolution passed. When the skunks who run this country obviously just went through the motions and then attacked, he tried to make it look like he had always been against the legislation that gave him the opportunity. It simply isn't so.

Edwards is not happy with the attack. He voted for the resolution based on the evidence given in secrecy, and believed that sincere diplomacy would work. It was a huge mistake.

He is not the issue here; and this was an issue you defined yourself, so to muddy the water with relativism is deceptive. The issue is whether Clark should be given some free pass of royalty when he very clearly was ducking, weaving and playing both sides of the street while positioning himself for political gain. There's no other explanation unless we're to believe that he's a slobbering moron and completely inept when microphones are put in front of him. That doesn't quite pass the sniff test; the guy's awfully damned smart.

This is a pattern, and it's a disturbing one.

Fine, turn this into a "your guy's worse than my guy" argument, but that still doesn't let the man off the hook for VERY questionable maneuverings and a habitual attempt to rewrite the past and not admit to playing games. That's in league with lying about opponents' voting records and refusing to retract outright lies and gross distortions. There's a huge character issue here, and far too many of his supporters are absolutely blinkered on the subject.

The premise has been thoroughly disproven by the man's own words, and some of them raise extreme questions of integrity; whether that still makes him the best human being of all the contenders or not doesn't mean a thing. The original post was about HIM, not him in relation to others. Just for once it would be nice to hear more than an occasional pro-Clark voice express some feelings of remorse for mistakes, character flaws and plain old dirty pool. That smacks of privilege, and that's anti-pluralist. Hero worship is dangerous.

[LandOLincoln]

99. Edwards is in fact the issue here; you have made him the issue,

and it's disingenuous in the extreme to claim otherwise.

Your agenda is clear, your tactics deplorable, and your agenda obvious.

Have you no shame? Really, where do your loyalties lie? With one severely flawed politician, or with the Democratic party and with the American people?

I know what I think...

[IndianaGreen]

93. Dennis Kucinich was against the war and the resolution(s) for war

This is why I supported the only candidate in the race that did not mince words, told it like it was, and was not getting monies from another campaign like Rev. Sharpton got from Kerry.

Kucinich was my candidate then for he did not do a Texas 2-step like most of the others did on Iraq, trying to have it both ways, pretending to be against the war yet voting for it.

The Iraq fiasco has turned many Democrats into revisionists, re-writing history in order to put their candidate in the best light. They underestimate the intelligence of the rank-and-file as they overestimate our capacity for forgiveness.

[drummo]

88. Just because he said at one point of time that

it would be a mistake to go to war in Iraq doesn't mean anything since the whole question is wether he wanted to have it both ways or not.
If he said on Monday I would support going to war then next Monday he said I think it would be a mistake then one certainly cannot claim that Clark has been consistently against the war.

[LandOLincoln]

94. Show me where Wes Clark ever said he would support going

to war in Iraq in 2002/3, and show me the circumstances under which he said he would be willing to go to war in Iraq EVER.

Do it now, and do it without your usual spin--IF you can.

Thank you.

[drummo]

121. I said "the whole question is wether he wanted to have it both ways or no"

OK?

Clark did not oppose the Bush-Gephardt resolution either before or after 2002 Oct 9. Instead he wanted to have it both ways, in 2003 he said he probably would have voted for it then he told the Globe he would have voted against it.

Clark did say, according to AP, that he would have advised Swett to vote for the resolulution if she had been in the Congress.
And Clark could know at the time that it was a war resolution. A blank check. Gore knew it. Dean knew it. I knew it. Those who wanted to pass various amedments knew it. And Bush knew it.
Later Clark told the Globe that he said what he said only because he had no idea what was in the resolution.
That doesn't make any sense.
If indeed he didn't know what was in it why did he say he would have advised her to vote for it?
Some of Clark's supporters pointed out that he said "a" resolution and then AP distorted what he said by changing the "a" to "the".
But the problem with that argument is that neither statement was a direct quote, therefore how can anyone know for sure whether Clark said "a" and not "the"? The other problem is that Clark never tried to defend himself by claiming he only said "a" resolution. Instead he claimed that he didn't know what was in the resolution, that's why he said he supported it.

By the way Bush himself never said "I want to go to war with Iraq". So according to your logic he never wanted to go to war with Iraq because he never said that explicitly.

[1932]

48. Norman Solomon characterizes Clark's objections to war as "tactical"

(as opposed to pincipled).

I think Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, supports that characterization even more than the quote above does.

Clark doesn't agree with the way the US got into the war (because he believes we could have achieved the same ends through virtual/soft empire), but he agrees with the execution of the invasion and with the intended outcome (a market economy which helps America get rich and get cheap oil). He argued that the problem with the post-invasion strategy (at the time the book was published in 2003) was that the army should not manage the institution-building phase (which is more appropriate for the state department to manage).

[FrenchieCat]

52. You can quible with Clark's discussion in the 75 minutes interview

with reporters on the day that he announced....
but his words and actions in September and October of 2002 are the real issue...not the fact that he may have been a political novice on the day he announced, and reporters were able to take 75 minutes and report on various sentences as they saw fit to back up their own agenda (see the Ron Fournier/Adam Sirgourney records on "out of context" reporting on many issues).

Clark admittely understood shortly after that that he had "bobbled" the question. He stated this many times....when he realized that journalists weren't gonna admit that they themselves were playing the "so ever fun game" of "Gotcha" with Clark's words. The real question is, however, what were his intent and his beliefs back during the actual vote, and what was he working towards? It wasn't in favor of the resolution that passed. That's the point.

Sure, the man's not perfect, and he learned quite a lesson on the day that he announced; that people aren't always interested in the "long" view of nuance, shades of grey reasoning, and reporters are not truly interested in reporting on it in that manner.
In a reporters world, Gotcha is the game, and Gotcha is the name.....But Clark's come a long way, baby, since.

Those who were gonna support those that did vote for the resolution would certainly "accept" Fourney/Sigourney's Corporate "gotcha" reporting...and they will use it to illustrate a point that they want made. In other instances, they will disavowe the Coporate media's reporting. Guess it goes both ways. Presstitutes have never impressed me, nor have I ever used what they say to endorse what I believe.

If you want to hear from Clark's lips about his late night phone discussions with Daschle in attempting to get the Levin or the Biden-Lugar amendments passed up to the eve before the vote...until Daschled let him know that Gephardt had "caved"...here's a video...

http://www.yellowdogdem.com/WesClarkInOkoboji.WMV
(download and then watch)

[PurityOfEssence]

57. One of those quotes if from THREE DAYS BEFORE the IWR vote

The Associated Press quotes him on October 8, 2002, which was just three days before the vote. Final passage was on October 11th.

This is specifically what you're requesting. Did you misread the date?

The spirit of the issue is this: did he support such a resolution or did he support action against Iraq. He did. He didn't do so consistently, and there's plenty of wiggle room, but to me, that isn't to his credit; it sounds like he was playing both sides of the street. He did so in his own words and they're well documented.

Yes, bills change as they get worked on. If he would have voted for some version of an IWR--as he said--but not the final form of the one passed, did he ever say so BEFORE THE VOTE was recorded?

Somehow, he gets off the hook and can then go back and claim to have been against it, whereas the sitting legislators who voted for it get no slack for limitations and other language written into the bill at great effort. The Dems limited the war resolution powers to Iraq only; that's not what Junior wanted. Somehow, they never get any credit for that from snipers who didn't have to stand up and be counted. Likewise, a sunset provision was added to the Patriot Act, but they get no praise for this either.

If Clark had stood up publicly and said something to the effect that he would vote against this bill BEFORE the vote came up, that would mean something. Otherwise, you want us to take his word for it after the fact. That quote from three days before the vote is damning. You require your opponents to use contemporaneous accounts and not rely on after-the-fact quotes, yet you reserve the right to do the latter yourself.

When was this Clark video about talking with Daschle taped? Was it immediately after the vote, later, or much later? The closer it is to the time of the vote, the more credibility he has.

[FrenchieCat]

61. You sure are tenacious and agressive in your

desconstruction of Clark's position.

So how does John Edwards' position fit into all of this? I reckon you may answer that he was honest on his support of the war from jump street, and that must make him a better man? Is that it? The motive, I mean to the energy you are exhibiting on this particular issue?

If what you say is true (and I don't think it is), I would submit that I'd rather have supported a General torn by the issue of war, then someone who bought it all and never hesitated or questioned the implications and ramification of such....even in 2004.

[PurityOfEssence]

68. I'll take this off the board

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am deeply dismayed by Edwards' vote. That is not the issue here. I wish I'd hear some Clark supporters admitting any failings of their champion.

I'll p.m. you at length, since it sounds like this is a sincere question, rather than rhetorical gainsaying in an open forum. Perhaps you'll understand, whether you agree or not.

Give me a day or so.

[Clark2008]

60. BTW, I stopped accepting emails from fact check

because I have seen them to be consistantly incorrect regarding Democrat positions (and not just Wes Clark). They sound rather Republican or DLCish to me.

In fact, I didn't even know they'd done a piece on Clark. It was their "fact checking" of other Dems that I know was erronious that soured me and made me delete my email from their e-newsletter.

[drummo]

44. n/t

edit:self deleted

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clark2008]

56. Good - because I don't want to go into all the reasons`

why Edwards is not a good choice for a post-9/11 America.

:eyes:

Seriously, what was the point of this post? If you're not allowed to say anything, why post at all?

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

67. You sure insinuate say a lot, for someone who is in fear and cannot speak

Ironic...to say the least. :shrug:

[nvliberal]

69. More important, did he ever have to vote on it?

It's easy to be out there blathering away without having to be accountable.

[nickshepDEM]

70. Truer words have never been spoken.

[FrenchieCat]

71. You don't know the answer to that one? Or was that rethorical?

Clark is a 4 star general. He didn't want us to go into Iraq, and he expressed why before both houses of congress at different sessions. He so clearly stated the reasons, that even Sen. Wellstone quoted him as he made his speech opposing the Iraq war vote.

Clark clearly stated that there was more than ample time to deal with Saddam....and that this was an elective war not a pre-emptive war that would take our eyes off of the real job at hand, dealing with terrorism. He said so many times prior to the vote. That's what he needs to be held accountable for....and that's what this OP was about.

THe op wasn't stating what others might have done....nor did it say what others should or could have done.

[Clark2008]

73. No - but he DID advise others not to vote on it.

In his capacity as a military and diplomatic expert, he advised the House Armed Services Committee to use force as a last resort - to actually allow diplomacy to work.

They didn't take his advise and neither did the full Congress.

But, the vast majority now know he was correct and told him so when he and Richard Perle were once again debating the issue before them in the spring of this year.

[PurityOfEssence]

76. Oh really? That's the first I've ever heard of it. Care to name names?

We know that he advised Katrina Swett, who was RUNNING for the House to vote for the thing if she was in office, but I have heard nothing about him advising anyone to vote against it.

The advice you cite can be easily interpreted as precisely what the IWR says: use force only as a last resort.

That header is very misleading; he did not advise others to not vote on the resolution that I've ever heard of. Did I miss something?

[FrenchieCat]

81. He advised both houses of congress to vote for "a " resolution

what would not give Bush the authority to use force. So in essence, Wes Clark advised all of congress....which is a lot of folks!

He stated that going to war in Iraq would supercharge Al queda recruiting...

Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie has been saying retired Gen. Wesley Clark was really for war in Iraq -- but the record doesn't bear that out.

“Wesley Clark claims to have always been against the war in Iraq.
Yet, testimony he gave to the House Armed Services Committee two weeks before Congress passed the Iraq Congressional Resolution says otherwise,” Gillespie writes on the RNC website. Gillespie made similar remarks in a speech given Jan. 15, saying of Clark ’s testimony “There was no stronger case made” for going to war.

But Gillespie gives only selective excerpts of Clark ’s testimony to the House Armed Services Committee Sept. 26, 2002 . Actually, Clark repeatedly urged patience and diplomacy, criticized the Bush administration for undercutting "friends and allies" and said “I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq .”

Don't take our word for it: Pentagon adviser Richard Perle, a strong supporter of going to war, testified with Clark at the same hearing and said, “I think Gen. Clark doesn’t want to see us use military force . . . . The bottom line is he just doesn’t want to take action. He wants to wait.”
snip
Clark said any military action should be with the support of NATO allies, and criticized the Bush administration for decisions "which have undercut its friends and allies around the world and given the impression that the United States doesn't respect the opinions of others.”

He made a clear distinction between threatening force and using it: "I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq but it is certainly time to put that card on the table, to turn it face up and to wave it."

And how did Perle summarize Clark's position?

I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm
http://www.factcheck.org/article130.html

Here are the late Senator Wellstone's words.....

Let me be clear: Saddam Hussein is a brutal, ruthless dictator who has repressed his own people, attacked his neighbors, and remains an international outlaw. The world would be a much better place if he were gone and the regime in Iraq were changed. That's why the U.S. should unite the world against Saddam, and not allow him to unite forces against us.

A go-it-alone approach, allowing for a ground invasion of Iraq without the support of other countries, could give Saddam exactly that chance.

A pre-emptive go-it-alone strategy towards Iraq is wrong. I oppose it. I support ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction through unfettered U.N. inspections, which should begin as soon as possible. Only a broad coalition of nations, united to disarm Saddam, while preserving our war on terror, is likely to succeed.
snip
Acting with the support of allies, including hopefully Arab and Muslim allies, would limit possible damage to that coalition and our anti-terrorism efforts. But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=2778&catID=298

[LandOLincoln]

92. Yes, of course that's the first you've heard of it,

because (a) you ignore everything that doesn't fit your agenda, and (b) Clark's and Perle's followup appearance before the HASC--last April 6th--was (IIRC) taped by C-Span but never shown.

Why was it never shown? Well, in my opinion, C-Span has been showing its true colors since the "election" of 2004, and they're not about to let us see the Republican HASC piling on Perle to a man--with the notable and glaring exception of that ass Duncan Hunter--and telling Wes Clark (tearfully, in one case) that he'd been absolutely correct back in 2002 (September 26th, if you want to Google it. I'm damned if I'm going to jump through your hoops).

[IndianaGreen]

77. There are problems with what you say Clark said

Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq.

I would like to know why Clark thinks it is alright to give Bush the authority to wage war under any language in any resolution. This is like giving the keys of your car to a drunkard and then act like it wasn't one's fault that the guy crashed his car into a crowd of pedestrians. This is as bad an argument as the Kerry people saying that Kerry believed Bush. Who would believe anything Bush says or does?

The point that Clark and others are missing is that the US does not have a God-given right to invade other countries. The invasion of Iraq was as illegal and wrong as our invasion of Panama and Grenada. The only difference is that we have lost the war in Iraq, and rightly so! Aggressor nations should never be rewarded.

The general said he had no doubt Iraq posed a threat, but questioned whether it was immediate and said the debate about a response has been conducted backward.

I would like to know why Clark considered Iraq a threat at all! Here we are in the aftermath of 9/11 and it seems to me that Clark and others should have been talking about the threat posed by Al-Qaeda and its fugitive leaders. Attacking Iraq after 9/11 makes as much sense as attacking Belize after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

In summary, no amendment could have made the Iraq War Resolution acceptable to the Left. IWR could have been modified ad nauseum and it would have been still wrong to have voted for it. It would have been wrong for any member of Congress to give Bush the authority to launch a war of aggression against a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.

[FrenchieCat]

79. Please note that the whole point of this excercise is that

the following... Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq WAS NOT a direct quote...and in addition Clark as mentioned as supporting "a" resolution....while the Biden-Lugar and the Levin amendments were still on the table...so yes, he may have supported "a" resolution. The Levin Resolution was the strongest in keeping Bush out of war for a time anyways...as he would have had to come back to congress prior to using force.

In addition, if you are saying that no Democrats should have said that Iraq was a threat, then I doubt that you will find more than one Democrat who agrees with you this issue--Dennis Kucinich was it....all of the rest of them pretty much agreed that Saddam was a threat, although not an iminent one (which is all that Clark said in that quote)....

I think many Democrats saw is as the General did...or the media's words The general said he had no doubt Iraq posed a threat, but questioned whether it was immediate

Here are some of the Democrats that thought Saddam was a threat, even if not an immediate one--These are the actual words those politicians used, not what others said they said:

Al Gore:

Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.

As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms.
Gore Speech at the Council of Foreign Relations on February 12, 2002
http://www.al-gore-2004.org/gorespeeches/02122002.htm

AND

Nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does indeed pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region, and we should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
Gore Speech at the Commonwealth Club 9/23/02
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html

HOWARD DEAN on Face the Nation on 9/29/02 -

GOV. HOWARD DEAN, D-VT: Not quite yet. There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. The question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not yet made the case for that.

I think it may very well be, particularly with the news that we've had over the weekend; that we are going to end up in Iraq. But I think it's got to be gone about in a very different way. It really is important to involve our allies, to bring other people into the coalition, to get a decent resolution out of the U.N. Security Council.

And if Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, we are clearly going to have to do something about it. But I'm not convinced yet and the president has not yet made the case, nor has he ever said, this is an immediate threat.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/main523726.shtml

and most emphathetic of all.....

JOHN EDWARDS

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It’s about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability — a capability that could be less than a year away.

I believe that Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.
Statement on the floor of the senate 9/12/02

Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East. We must do more to support existing nonproliferation and disarmament programs that can help prevent access to the weapons-grade materials that tyrants such as Hussein want. We must demand America's active and continuous involvement in addressing the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and in promoting democracy throughout the Arab world. We must commit to developing a national strategy for energy security, one that would reduce our reliance on the Middle East for such critical resources.

Iraq is a grave and growing threat. Hussein has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people.

Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein's arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation.
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm
John Edwards Op Ed in the WAPO dated 9/17/02

Now many will say that I am taking statements out of context. I don't personally think so. Considering that I am not being pointed to quotes spoken directly by Clark, but rather the paraphrasing of reporters....who in all of their quoted and attributed statements is really being taken out of context--that's what I'd like to know?

[BootinUp]

95. Clark didn't lose the primary because of this, and Dean and Kuch didn't

win either.

The next President of the US will be someone who has a foreign policy National Security vision that is a clear and effective alternative to the neocons.

Anyways, I refuse to argue this point which was championed by the media, the RW and anti-war left.

[BootinUp]

96. that was supposed

to be in reply to the OP. oops ;)

[drummo]

116. The "a resolution" statement was not a direct quote either

But you still are sure those were Clark's words.

That's pretty arbitrary.

And again, Pindell did quote Clark as saying that going to war against our enemies before they strike applied in that situation.

[Texas_Kat]

118. See post 31

What part of "Pindell writes for a front for the Right Wing fanatic Claremont Institute" didn't you get?

[drummo]

119. The Pindell article was not biased at all

And noone, not even Clark himself ever disputed the accuracy of that quote. Do you? And if so based on what? General accusation of bias is not enough. The Nation is biased and still sometimes they tell the truth.

But forget about Pindell if you want. The fact remains there is no direct quote in the AP report which means that neither the "a" not the "the" statement should be considered Clark's own words IF you say that just because the "the" statement is not a direct quote it must be a distortion of what Clark really said.

[sendero]

120. I care not much ..

.... about who voted for or supported the original IWR.

I care a lot about folks who spent precious political capital trying to nuance their way out of it.

Either declare that your interpretation of the IWR did not give Bush the authority to do what he did, or just renounce the vote as a grievous error.

Don't spend the next years trying to wriggle out of it with bland words.